210

THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.

apparently in great haste +, and without sufficient acquaintance with the present state of scientific research on several of the topics touched on or discussed in my Essay—still his review contains some very valuable hints and communications, especially from the Mahābhāshya, for which we are thankful to him and to Prof. Bhāndārkar, to whose aid he several times states that he is indebted. Berlin, 18th April 1873. A. WEBER.

[JULY, 1873.

Prākrit form like kinao or kunno, or even kanno (for old Hindi appears to recognise a verbal base kana). That. the base kuna is restricted to verse

by Prākrit grammars is not opposed to my theory, as my critic seems to imagine, but is in favour of it; and that is the reason why I referred to it. It is a well-known fact, of which Hindi affords ex

Might not Sagada, the metropolis of the

amples in abundance, that the colloquial has many forms which by the literary language are restricted to poetry. That the past part. pass. of the base kuna is not met with in any Prākrit work (of which, by the way, we know only very few as yet) is no proof,

A d e is a thro i, near the hills of Ux ent us, be

that it cannot be formed and did not exist in the

Sāgara, near the sources of the Dašár na (Dosan), 200 miles E.N.E. of Ujjain P Spruner places it about 50 miles W.N.W of Warangol.—ED.

spoken language. However, what I maintain is that the Hindi genitive post-positions are derived

GENITIVE POST-POSITIONS.

and gave some reasons for it, that they are identical with the Hindi ones. This requires further proof:

Vote.

from a Prākrit equivalent of the Sanskrit past part. krita; as to the rest, Imerely expressed an opinion,

To the Editor, Indian Antiquary. SIR,--In the April number of the Indian Antiquary (p. 121) appeared a letter from Dr. Tischel with criticisms on my theory of the Gaurian genitive post-positions. I now request the favour of your inserting the following reply. As regards the remark regarding the Prākrit of the plays being founded on the sūtra of Wa raruchi, I regret its somewhat careless expression, as it seems to have scandalized my critic so much.

but my own further investigations have rather confirmed me in my view. My critic thinks that

“it is easy to prove” that the Bangāli and Oriyā. genitive post-positions are not derived from the

Prākrit keraka. But he has not produced his proof. For his statements as to the use of keraka in Prākrit, whether true or not, have no particular

bearing on the question whether the Bangāli er is a curtailment of keraka or not.

The only

Many Prākrit scholars, and all those who combine

argument that I can discover among his criticisms

a knowledge of the modern Indian vernaculars with that of Prākrit (e. g. Beames in his Comp. Gram. passim), hold that the colloquial or vulgar Prākrit differed, and perhaps considerably, from the literary Prākrit used in the plays, and gram marized, so to speak, by Vararuchi and his suc

is that “the word keraka is far too modern to under go so vast and rapid a change as to be curtailed to simple er.” The fact is that keraka occurs in the sense of a genitive post-position so early as

cessors.

These two Prākrits cannot have been

without influence upon one another; hence in the plays forms are found which are not noticed, especially in the earlier grammars, and which probably were introduced from the vulgar Prākrit. Still, generally speaking, the literary Prākrit re mained stationary, while the colloquial Prākrit changed and developed. Those who wrote Prākrit (in dramas and otherwise) must have learned the

literary Prākrit, and must have learned it from the Prākrit grammars. This is what was meant. The question is too large a one to be fully stated here.

Perhaps Dr. Pischel takes a different view of it;

in the Mrichchhakatiká, which is generally supposed to have been written in the beginning of the Christian era; and of the oldest Bangāli there is next to no literature; so that the argument has no leg to stand upon.—I may take this oppor. tunity, however, to state that since writing my

third essay I have modified my view so far (for in such a novel inquiry it is especially true that

dies diem docet) that I now consider the Bangălier not to be a curtailment of the Prākrit keraka, but

of kera; because otherwise the Bangāli post-posi. tion would be pronounced era, and not er.—My critic says that I maintain that the genitive of santána was originally santána-keraka. I main tain no such thing. If he had followed the drift

but that is no reason why my view should be in correct. What the colloquial Prākrit must have

of my argument more attentively, he would have

been, cannot be determined from the Prākrits of

steps by which keraka in conjunction with the

the dramas and grammars only, but also, and often more truly, from the modern vernaculars.

seen that I merely wished to trace the probable final č of a noun becomes curtailed into er.

For

Now the old and, at present, poetical and vulgar

this purpose any noun with a final quiescent & would do. I took santána because it was ready

Hindi past part. kind (or kind) postulates some

to hand, being the paradigm in the excellent Ban

• The August part of the Indian Antiquary contained the conclusion of Mr. Boyd's translation, and Mr. Käsinath

read his paper on the 2nd September.